US Government removing social media posts it views as misinformation ?

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
I’m speaking of the prospect of minorities not being able to speak out against racial discrimination, police brutality, inequities in housing, education, etc…. We believe it’s a good idea to trust the majority to determine what speech minorities are allowed to disseminate. That’s a very dangerous proposition. We’ve seen minorities silenced throughout world history when the majority wants to oppress (or worse) the same.

You're making a slippery slope argument that just doesn't happen. You know what is actually dangerous to the rights of minorities? Allowing hate speech saying those minorities should lose rights.

What is dangerous is disallowing speech that is critical of the government or businesses. The censorship of that type of speech is what has ultimately led to the plight of minorities.

If you look at the classic example of Germany, it was the allowance of anti-semetic hate speech that helped Hitler rise to the office of Chancellor, and only after he attained that office was he able to use the attack on the Reichstag to fully consolidate power. It was the Enabling Act of 1933 which gave Hitler the power to make and enforce laws without the consultation of the legislature or the President, and allowed him to override individual rights and the checks and balances of the Weimar Constitution. It took the Nazis literally suspending the entirety of what would have effectively been their Bill of Rights at one time for Germany to turn out the way it did.

What didn't happen was a slow slide into despotism with minorities being limited on what they could say about X issue. It was the unmoderated freedom of speech of the Nazis BEFORE they took power that allowed them to garner just enough support that they could eliminate all opposition once the right situation arose. Every time the Weimar Republic did try to moderate their speech, the government typically capitulated to the Nazis or the Nazis figured out a loophole to sidestep the bans.

This is what I'm worried about. It's not a death-by-a-thousand-cuts where our rights are eaten away gradually. It's the unrestricted use of the freedoms given to us to gain support for people with malevolent purposes who will then simply sever all of our freedoms at once in what is effectively a coup d'etat of civil liberty.

The literal text of the Reichstag Fire Decree was: Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
What is dangerous is disallowing speech that is critical of the government or businesses. The censorship of that type of speech is what has ultimately led to the plight of minorities.
Which is why every post I’ve made in this thread and others is against the silencing of speech which is critical of the government or business. Basically those in power. You’re now making the exact argument I’ve made for the last 5 pages.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
Which is why every post I’ve made in this thread and others is against the silencing of speech which is critical of the government or business. Basically those in power. You’re now making the exact argument I’ve made for the last 5 pages.
There is a difference between speech critical of the government and outright lies about public health issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
There is a difference between speech critical of the government and outright lies about public health issues.
My example in this entire thread has been speech suggesting the Covid virus originated in the Wuhan lab. What was the outright lie here? The slippery slope is when the sole power to determine what is and isn’t a “lie” (ie…what can be banned and who can be banned) rests in one or a small group of individuals or the federal government. The alarming thing is my example isn’t a hypothetical.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
My example in this entire thread has been speech suggesting the Covid virus originated in the Wuhan lab. What was the outright lie here? The slippery slope is when the sole power to determine what is and isn’t a “lie” (ie…what can be banned and who can be banned) rests in one or a small group of individuals or the federal government. The alarming thing is my example isn’t a hypothetical.
Again, it's not alarming. Alarming is the rhetoric that builds up to a climactic "Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... have been suspended indefinitely", and that rhetoric was exactly the type of thing that the "Wuhan lab" folks were espousing.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
Again, it's not alarming. Alarming is the rhetoric that builds up to a climactic "Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... have been suspended indefinitely", and that rhetoric was exactly the type of thing that the "Wuhan lab" folks were espousing.
I will ask again…what was the outright lie regarding the Wuhan lab hypothesis? Who determines what is a lie? There are plenty of other examples. Was the Hunter Biden story a lie? Your standard is banning outright lies. What were they here ?
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
some of the first reports and information about aids was confusing and wrong. there was no censorship then.
And those false reports proved materially detrimental in the impact of public perception and reaction to minorities, specifically homosexuals.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Sophomore
Mar 19, 2021
450
67
28
You're making a slippery slope argument that just doesn't happen. You know what is actually dangerous to the rights of minorities? Allowing hate speech saying those minorities should lose rights.

What is dangerous is disallowing speech that is critical of the government or businesses. The censorship of that type of speech is what has ultimately led to the plight of minorities.

If you look at the classic example of Germany, it was the allowance of anti-semetic hate speech that helped Hitler rise to the office of Chancellor, and only after he attained that office was he able to use the attack on the Reichstag to fully consolidate power. It was the Enabling Act of 1933 which gave Hitler the power to make and enforce laws without the consultation of the legislature or the President, and allowed him to override individual rights and the checks and balances of the Weimar Constitution. It took the Nazis literally suspending the entirety of what would have effectively been their Bill of Rights at one time for Germany to turn out the way it did.

What didn't happen was a slow slide into despotism with minorities being limited on what they could say about X issue. It was the unmoderated freedom of speech of the Nazis BEFORE they took power that allowed them to garner just enough support that they could eliminate all opposition once the right situation arose. Every time the Weimar Republic did try to moderate their speech, the government typically capitulated to the Nazis or the Nazis figured out a loophole to sidestep the bans.

This is what I'm worried about. It's not a death-by-a-thousand-cuts where our rights are eaten away gradually. It's the unrestricted use of the freedoms given to us to gain support for people with malevolent purposes who will then simply sever all of our freedoms at once in what is effectively a coup d'etat of civil liberty.

The literal text of the Reichstag Fire Decree was: Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Nixon's war on drugs is better example of a slippery slope. The Congress enacted and SCOTUS allowed warrantless searches, confiscation of property without trial or being proven quilty of any crime and other previously unConstitutional acts. Erlichman admitted decades later than Nixon wasn't worried about drugs, but rather he used drugs as a surrogate for anti-black policies.
 
Last edited:

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
This is not the sort of thing anyone is advocating.
I assume the Taliban could have simply flagged the posts from its critics and had the social media sites ban those individuals if they had the resources of the US. Net same accomplishment.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
I assume the Taliban could have simply flagged the posts from its critics and had the social media sites ban those individuals if they had the resources of the US. Net same accomplishment.
They cut the internet all together… and the things that were being talked about on Facebook were not critical of the government nor were we dealing with a violent military regime change.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
They cut the internet all together… and the things that were being talked about on Facebook were not critical of the government nor were we dealing with a violent military regime change.
As I said, if you don’t have the resources to flag posts and ban those posters (ie….the US Government) then you simply eliminate everyone’s ability to speak on social media. Serves the net same purpose of silencing ones critics.

Comments question the safety of the Covid vaccine, it’s current effectiveness, story of Hunter’s Biden’s laptop, have all resulted in suspension and bans. I don’t see how anyone can argue these aren’t critical of a government program or paint the family of a government official in a bad light.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
As I said, if you don’t have the resources to flag posts and ban those posters (ie….the US Government) then you simply eliminate everyone’s ability to speak on social media. Serves the net same purpose of silencing ones critics.

Comments question the safety of the Covid vaccine, it’s current effectiveness, story of Hunter’s Biden’s laptop, have all resulted in suspension and bans. I don’t see how anyone can argue these aren’t critical of a government program or paint the family of a government official in a bad light.
None of those things have actual relation to the government.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
None of those things have actual relation to the government.
Surely you don’t believe that. The government has spent $30B on developing the vaccine. Billions more in promoting it. A story on any high ranking federal officials family member certainly has a direct relationship to the government especially when said official might be tied to possible wrong doing.
 
Last edited:

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
14,058
4,462
113
Surely you don’t believe that. The government has spent $30B on developing the vaccine. Billions more in promoting it. A story on any high ranking federal officials family member certainly has a direct relationship to the government especially when said official might be tied to possible wrong doing.
There is enough to criticize about the government with bringing those things into the equation. The vaccine nonsense is just that, nonsense and it doesn’t deserve to be on any platform. In fact the propensity for that nonsense to be on social media is exactly why there has been difficulty vaccinating Republicans and why mandates could become necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
24,302
4,625
113
There is enough to criticize about the government with bringing those things into the equation. The vaccine nonsense is just that, nonsense and it doesn’t deserve to be on any platform. In fact the propensity for that nonsense to be on social media is exactly why there has been difficulty vaccinating Republicans and why mandates could become necessary.
There is zero wrong with questioning the long term effects of a vaccine which we don’t know it’s long term effects. You’re standard was outright lies should be censored. What banned speech have I outlined which were outright lies?The Taliban understands how news is spread in 2021. Our government obviously does as well.
 

Latest posts